You are here

Archived: Molescroft Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 June 2015

This inspection took place on 16 April 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 23 April 2013 and found that the registered provider met the regulations that we assessed.

The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 44 older people, including people with a dementia related condition. The home is located in Molescroft which is close to Beverley, a town in the Riding of Yorkshire. It is on the outskirts of the town but close to transport links. There are three separate units: The House, The Annexe and The Haven. People are accommodated in single rooms and most have en-suite facilities.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since 24 February 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff had completed training on safeguarding adults from abuse and were able to describe to us the action they would take if they had concerns about someone’s safety. They said that they were confident all staff would recognise and report any incidents or allegations of abuse.

We observed good interactions between people who lived at the home, staff and relatives on the day of the inspection. People told us that they felt staff really cared about them and that staff respected their privacy and dignity.

People were supported to make their own decisions and when they were unable to do so, meetings were held to ensure that decisions were made in the person’s best interests. If it was considered that people were being deprived of their liberty, the correct documentation was in place to confirm this had been authorised.

Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.

We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. Staff worked in one of the three units throughout their shift and this promoted consistency for people who lived in each unit.

New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. Staff received a thorough induction programme before they worked unsupervised.

The laundry room was not fit for purpose; it was cluttered and was not divided into ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ areas. The window frame was rotten and there were open pipes attached to the hot water boiler. It was not possible to ensure that the laundry room was maintained in a clean and hygienic condition.

This was a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People who used the service and relatives told us that staff were effective and skilled. Staff told us that they were happy with the training provided for them, and that they could request additional training if they felt they needed it.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us that they were satisfied with the meals provided by the home. People were supported appropriately by staff to eat and drink safely and their special diets were catered for.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives, health and social care professionals and staff. People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately.

People who lived at the home, relatives and staff told us that the home was well managed. The quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of concern or areas that were unsafe, and there were systems in place to ensure that lessons were learned from any issues identified.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2015

The service is not safe.

The communal areas of the home were clean, hygienic and well-maintained but the laundry room was not fit for purpose and did not promote good prevention and control of infection.

The arrangements in place for the management of medicines were robust and staff had received the appropriate training.

Staff displayed a good understanding of the different types of abuse and were able to explain the action they would take if they observed an incident of abuse or became aware of an abusive situation.

We found that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure that the needs of the people who lived at the home could be met, and that staff had been employed following robust recruitment practices.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 June 2015

The service is effective.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and best interest meetings were arranged when people needed support with decision making. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff told us that they completed training that equipped them with the skills they needed to carry out their role and this was supported by the records we saw and the other people we spoke with.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and met, and people’s special diets were catered for. People told us that they liked the ‘home made’ meals they received.

People had access to health care professionals when required. Advice given by health care professionals was followed by staff to ensure that people’s health care needs were fully met.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 June 2015

The service is caring.

People who lived at the home and their relatives told us that staff were caring and we observed positive interactions between people who lived at the home and staff on the day of the inspection.

It was clear that people’s individual needs were understood by staff.

We saw that people’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and that people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 June 2015

The service is responsive to people’s needs.

People’s care plans recorded information about their previous lifestyle and the people who were important to them. Their preferences and wishes for care were recorded and these were known by staff.

People told us they were able to take part in their chosen activities and people who were able were supported to see their relatives and friends and be part of the local community.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people told us that they were confident that any comments or complaints they made would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 June 2015

The service is well led.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection.

The registered manager carried out a variety of quality audits to monitor that the systems in place at the home were being followed by staff to ensure the safety and well-being of people who lived and worked at the home.

There was a cohesive staff team who told us they were well supported by the manager.

There were sufficient opportunities for people who lived at the home and others to express their views about the quality of the service provided.